Dawkins & Religion

[Magic Man]

'Cause there's some question as to whether or not the quotes are out of context. If they are, then they're not enough to make the conclusion that Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant of nearly all religion.

Yes, I agree, but I don't understand what other groups doing it to other people have to do with this particular example. That's all.

 

[logician]

To Dawkins, having no religion is his religion, and yeah, he sux at it. Funny thing is, the way I figure, history might just name him prophet; since the more I look at evolution, the more it looks godlike... but that's just me

You're wrong on every point.

 

[logician]

I think Dawkins is great, smart, and right on point. It's funny how much the pro-religious crowd will pounce on one man who has opinions against religion, but will say nothing about the many, many "evangelists" aggressively pushing their daily stew in 50's doos 24/7 on TV. Makes one sick, really.

 

[Yerda]

Theology isn't "a subject at all?" What hubris! What abject arrogance to denigrate the great minds fascinated by the topic, the magnificent treatises, the priceless pearls of wisdom millennia of fascination have produced.

Is there a "Is theology a subject?" thread?

 

[Autodidact]

Yep, he's rather calm, witty and devoid of the arrogance that his detractors allege. I may disagree with some of his views but his positive contributions far outweigh the negatives. I'm always puzzled by the allegations that he's shrill or demeaning: he's a veritable soft spoken wuss when compared to an H.L. Menken or Spinoza or Twain.

Furthermore, Rush Limbaugh flunked out of college, while Richard Dawkins was the Oxford Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think Dawkins is great, smart, and right on point. It's funny how much the pro-religious crowd will pounce on one man who has opinions against religion, but will say nothing about the many, many "evangelists" aggressively pushing their daily stew in 50's doos 24/7 on TV. Makes one sick, really.

Oh, as a person who doesn't really agree with Dawkins myself, I must say, he's nowhere near as bad as televangelists.

 

[Smoke]

I find his approach and demeanor to be so off-setting, that to me it negates whatever it is he's droning on and on about. His style is right uo there with Coulter, Limbaugh, et al.

He intends to be offensive, and he is. It's not a style I appreciate or want to expose myself to unnecessarily, so I don't.

Yeah, I'm calling bull on that one, Kathryn. That's really not a matter of opinion. His style and demeanor are light years away from any resemblance to Coulter or Limbaugh, and any honest observer would know that. Either you haven't actually watched him, or you're so blinded by your dislike of what he says that you can't bring yourself to be honest about his style and demeanor. Either way, what you say here is simply not true.

 

[Caladan]

Dawkins writes great books about evolution, I enjoyed the Blind Watchmaker alot.
He also works on some interesting issues concerning religion, such as dispelling various modern superstitions. I do agree that his religious arguments are not as great as his biology ones, however like Nepenthe, I believe that he is mostly harmless, and I'm not sure he deserves half the anger thats pointed at him. his contribution to bringing evolution to the lay reader outshadows the frustration religious people feel about his attacks on religious dogma.

 

[tarasan]

Dawkins is one of those people who seems to have learned a lot about one or two belief systems and consequently thinks he's got it sussed. I have to admit, seeing him debate fundies always makes me smirk, but that said I don't see much in him.

He knows plenty about fundamentalist Christianity, but I think his knowledge of theism is rather limited outside of that.

unfortunately he doesnt even know alot about fundie theology.

i dont have respect for him as his books and ideas are so easily critiqued that people have made a hobby out of it.

he is loud and rude, and thats about it.

wouldnt want to argue evolution with him thought XD

 

[sojourner]

Just blame Sojo....that's what I do.

Just kidding!

Look out for Groundskeeper Willie!!!

 

[sojourner]

If Dawkins is to be criticized for criticizing religion without having made a thorough study of theology, the bare minimum required of his critics must be that they have made a thorough study of his writings, and not informed themselves in a casual manner from random quotes found on the internet.

He shoots... he scores!
GOOOOAAAAAL!!!

 

[sojourner]

What a fantastic OP. I couldn't have said it better myself.

The man is about as charming and intellectual as Ann Coulter or Al Sharpton.

I wouldn't say that he's not intellectual -- he is. but his arguments ring false to me. It's like saying that Ansel Adams' work adds nothing real to photography because the pictures aren't in color.

 

[sojourner]

There is at least one hugely significant difference. He doesn't lie.

that would depend on the parameters with which "lie" is defined.

 

[Kathryn]

Yeah, I'm calling bull on that one, Kathryn. That's really not a matter of opinion. His style and demeanor are light years away from any resemblance to Coulter or Limbaugh, and any honest observer would know that. Either you haven't actually watched him, or you're so blinded by your dislike of what he says that you can't bring yourself to be honest about his style and demeanor. Either way, what you say here is simply not true.

He is absolutely as sarcastic, belittling, and condescending as some of the worst right-wing extremists or creationists. Just because he doesn't have a shrill voice doesn't make him much less offensive - though I admit that a high pitched shrill girly voice would be even MORE distasteful to me.

You have your opinion on him based on your own beliefs and biases, and I have mine based on the same. But they're both just opinions, Smoke. And both are valid as far as opinions go.

 

[Kathryn]

I wouldn't say that he's not intellectual -- he is. but his arguments ring false to me. It's like saying that Ansel Adams' work adds nothing real to photography because the pictures aren't in color.

I'm sorry - I just am not overly impressed with his "intellectualism." Now, granted, I haven't read one of his books, but I have read some of his articles, listened to him on numerous talk shows, and checked out his website several times. If he hasn't impressed me enough

There's a big difference between clever, smart, cerebral, and wise. I prefer bestowing the title of "intellectual" on those who emcompass all those qualities, rather than just one or two of the above.

But like I said in an earlier post - that's just my opinion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

He is absolutely as sarcastic, belittling, and condescending as some of the worst right-wing extremists or creationists.

Can you give an example of him being any of these things? I'm just curious.

 

[Sunstone]

Don't you just wish Dawkins were as bad as people say he is?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Don't you just wish Dawkins were as bad as people say he is?

I used to be one of those people - until I actually starting reading his books, watching his lectures and actually listening to what he had to say. Now I love the guy.

 

[Smoke]

He is absolutely as sarcastic, belittling, and condescending as some of the worst right-wing extremists or creationists. Just because he doesn't have a shrill voice doesn't make him much less offensive - though I admit that a high pitched shrill girly voice would be even MORE distasteful to me.

You have your opinion on him based on your own beliefs and biases, and I have mine based on the same. But they're both just opinions, Smoke. And both are valid as far as opinions go.

It's not about girly voices; it's about style and demeanor, and it's absolutely false to say that Dawkins' style and demeanor are similar to those of Coulter and Limbaugh.

My opinion isn't based on my beliefs and biases, either. I agree with most of what Christopher Hitchens says about the subject, but I strongly dislike his style and demeanor, and I've often said so. (Actually, I usually refer to him as a belligerent sot or something along those lines.) I agree with most of what Keith Olbermann says, but cringe at his manner of saying it. If Dawkins' style and demeanor were similar to Coulter's or Limbaugh's, I'd be one of the first to say so and criticize him for it.

However, I have to agree with you that your own opinion about it is based on your beliefs and biases. It would pretty much have to be, since it could hardly be based on the way Dawkins comports himself.

It is not true that any opinion is as good as any other, and your opinion in this instance is obviously at variance with the facts.

 

[Nepenthe]

Don't you just wish Dawkins were as bad as people say he is?

It's kinda amusing and bothersome that the vitriol aimed at a scientist like Dawkins- a guy who has little if any impact on politics or society outside of his bestsellers- has this hyperbolic and ugly rhetoric aimed at his rather mundane and tame comments. Yet, for example, a spiritual icon like Mother Theresa who did have a profound socio-political influence on a huge segment of the planet is celebrated despite her shady financial dealings, controversial orphanages and charities. People aim their venom at the oddest targets.